On the word "cyclops"

[on:]

This may seem like something really minor, but in Futurama, they've never used the correct plural of "cyclops". It's "cyclopes" (oh-p, not op)...not "cyclopses"...anyone else notice this?   

[Reply #1 on:]

Exactly - that's the whole point. It's a rare word to come across, and people always seem to screw up plurals on words that end with S. Trust me, I think professional writers would know the actual plural of this. It's a joke, nothing more.

[Reply #2 on:]

hmm i never caught the joke, i must not be a professional writer...

[Reply #3 on:]

Well, why don't you AXE someone at the next X-MAS party about the improper language use?

My oh-so-subtle point? Just another way the language has changed in 1000 years.

[Reply #4 on:]

Or is it cyclopii?

[Reply #5 on:]

According to Chambers Dictionary the plural of Cyclops is either Cyclopes or Cyclopses, so there was no error.

[Reply #6 on:]

 

Originally posted by Ranadok:
Well, why don't you AXE someone at the next X-MAS party about the improper language use?

My oh-so-subtle point? Just another way the language has changed in 1000 years.

Yeah, non-standard plurals are becoming an endangered species already.  A thousand years from now, they'll probably be gone altogether.

 

Originally posted by Tweek:
According to Chambers Dictionary the plural of Cyclops is either Cyclopes or Cyclopses, so there was no error.

See what I mean?   

[Reply #7 on:]

I humbly stop whining....gracias to Tweek.

[Reply #8 on:]

 

Yeah, non-standard plurals are becoming an endangered species already. A thousand years from now, they'll probably be gone altogether.

So Fry saying "I love symposia!" was another example of his using archaic 20th century language?

[Reply #9 on:]

If you like.

[Reply #10 on:]

 

Originally posted by PCC Fred:
Or is it cyclopii?

Cyclopae... 

[Reply #11 on:]

Cyclop. Pure and simple.